yielding. as soon as we can work out the specifics with the staff, that's exactly the intention that senator vitter and i came to, so a single vote on the merger of two amendments, and i would just take a moment to thank senator vitter for his help on this. madam president, senator vitter was kind enough to offer the text of my legislation, as an amendment to the patent reform bill. i think what he is adding by suggesting that the legislation should require the treasury to prioritize not only the debt service so that we can avoid under all circumstances a default -- avoid a default by the united states government, but also make sure that social security payments get the priority they deserve. the fact is, in the -- i think unlikely and i would say certainly unfortunate event that we were to reach the debt limit without having raised it, the federal government would still take in more than enough revenue

to pay all of the interest service on the debt and all social security benefits. it's entirely manageable from an operational, functional point of view. total revenue to the government from tax purposes alone is on the order of 70% of all expected expenditures. debt service is only about 6%. so i appreciate senator vitter's help on this, and by combining this, what we really do, if we can pass this legislation, which i hope we will, we can take off the table the specter of a default, we can take off the table the specter of any senior citizen not getting their social security payment, and what we can then do is really have an honest discussion about how are we going to reform a process that's gotten us into this fix? gotten us to the point where we're running a debt of 10% of g.d.p., where our total debt is screaming towards totally unsustainable levels. i can tell you the folks in pennsylvania know very we will that you cannot continue living

beyond your moneys, as this government has done. i see this as a very constructive and important opportunity to begin to have there discussion about how we're going to get this process under croavment i appreciate the help from senator vitter and i will yield back my time to him. mr. vitter: i thank my distinguished colleague and again this amendment, as modified, simply says that if we were ever to reach the statutory debt limit for the federal government, then revenue coming in would go first to service two things -- social security checks and interest on the federal debt. so that would not put -- be put in jeopardy for months down the line. and the purpose of this amendment is to try to take, quite frankly, again, madam president, some of the scare tactics and some of the hysteria out of the debate. and to urge us to act. none of us want to bump up on the debt ceiling. none of us are advocating that. what we're advocating is to take

action now, real, serious budget reform, to put us on a more fiscally sustainable path. we need to do that now. that's why we came to the floor with these concerns on the patent bill. we need to do that now. we need to act now. we need to get on the fiscally sustainable path now. the clock is ticking, as chairman bernanke reminded us before the banking committee this morning. with that, madam president, i look forward to locking in a vote on this matter and in the consent that establishes that, we will be happy to withdraw the other amendment and simply have one vote on the now-combined toomey-vitter amendment. with that, madam president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. coburn: i'd ask that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. coburn: madam president, i wish to thank the chairman of the committee for his work on this patent bill. i still have a few small problems with it but i'm extremely grateful for his consideration of an amendment in terms of the fee diversion. what most people in america don't understand is there's no tax dollars taken from any general fund for the patent

office. it's all fees that when you file a patent or file a trademark or file a copyright, you pay into the patent office. unfortunately, over the last 10 or 15 years, $800 million of those dollars, of those fees have not been left at the patent office. they've been taken and used somewhere else. so when you pay a fee for a patent, that money isn't going to pay for the examination of the patent, and so right now we find ourselves with 718,000 patents waiting for first acti action. if i file a patent today, what we will see is 26 months from now, my pat lent have first action and the first reading of an examiner of my patent application. and if we want to create jobs and we want to stay on top of the world in terms of

innovation, we can't allow that process to continue. so what the amendment does is says we're not going to take the money that people used to pay for a patent application and spend is t somewher -- and spent somewhere else. we're actually going to spend it on patent applications. that's what it was set up for, and, quite frankly, it's imnortherly take money for a specific -- it's immoral to take money for a specific purpose of an inventor or university and not apply it to the purpose for which it was intended under the statute. and although this is a controversial -- this isn't controversial, most americans would think if you're paying $10 on a toll road, the money for the toll road's going to keep the toll road up, and yet we haven't been doing that with the patent office. and we're in trouble not because of -- just of our patent office, but we're also in trouble because we've not enforced intellectual property rights

owned by americans around the world. and so as we work on getting a patent bill and blending it with whatever the house passes, it's just as important -- and i thank again the chairman of the judiciary committee, because he was kind enough to have a hearing on intellectual property for us in terms of its enforcement. so there's two key points for american innovation to bring jobs to america. one is when you get a good idea, having the ability to get it patented and defend the patent. and the other side of that is to enforce that patent throughout the world with our own justice department and, in terms of our state department, in terms of intellectual property rights. it's -- it's amazing that how much of our intellectual property is being stolen by china today. and i want to relate to you a conversation i had with the -- the secretary of commerce, equivalent to our secretary of commerce in china three years ago. when i asked him about

intellectual property rights, he was very bold in his statement to say that we're not going to honor them, we're a developing nation and you wouldn't have honored them either. even though they're a signatory to the world trade organization. so it's important that we understand who we're dealing with, people that are going to cheat and steal intellectual property from america. so fixing the patent apparatus will help us get there, but it's just as important that we have tough laws on our books here that create sanctions on nations who do not honor intellectual property. so again, i would say this is -- this is a simple, straightforward, moral response to an immoral act that we've been doing, collecting fees for something and not spending them on that, which has put us behind the curve. and this will bring us back. we have a wonderful new director over last 18 months to our patent office. it's being run better than it's ever been run. they're catching up. but last year, we took $53 million of the fees that were for patents and spent it

elsewhere. and what this amendment does is stop that. and it may come a time -- in this bill, we allow the patent was to set their fees -- it will come a time when we have to say, wait a minute, you guys, you're charging too much, you've got to be more efficient. and so my hope is -- and we don't do anything with oversight. we still have the oversight capabilities of all the appropriation committees. we still have the ability to change this in the future in terms of their fee setting. and if we do the proper oversight, what we will do is we will spring forward with tremendous new technology that is protected and enable that capital expenditure that was spent to get that technology to flourish in terms of american jobs. so, again, i would say i thank the chairman. he worked with me judiciously on this. it's been a pleasure to work with him and i thank him for his efforts on my behalf and that of the american inventors in this country. mr. leahy: and i --

the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: madam president, if the senator would yield, he -- he raised some questions with me. we worked both in the committee and out of the committee with respect for each other's position. i appreciate his work in the committee to expedite getting the bill out of committee, because, like he, i believe this is extraordinarily important to level the playing field and allow american innovators to be able to compete with the rest of the world as well as compete within our country. and so i compliment the -- i compliment the senator and, as he knows, i've included his proposal in the -- in the managers' amendment because i felt it was a good proposal. mr. coburn: i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: i ask unanimous consent that the time until 5:00 p.m. be for debate on the leahy-grassley amendment number 121, as modified. which i believe is pending? the presiding officer: it is one of the pending amendments. mr. leahy: okay. i ask unanimous consent that the time until 5:00 p.m. be for debate on the leahy-grassley amendment number 121, as modified, and the vitter-toomey amendment number 112 as modified en bloc and divided between the two leaders or their designees. that upon the use or yielding back of time, the senate proceed to a vote in relation to the leahy-grassley amendment number 121, as modified, that upon disposition of the leahy-grassley amendment, the senate vote in relation to the vitter for toomey amendment number 112, as modified, the

motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate and there be no amendments in order to any of the amendments listed in this agreement prior to the vote. and, further, that the vitter amendment number 113, as modified, be withdrawn. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. leahy: madam president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. mr. leahy: madam president, i ask consent the time be charged equally. the presiding officer: without objection. the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i rise for the purpose of putting a statement -- the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. mr. grassley: the light's not

on. i can only go by what i see. there is no quorum call. the presiding officer: the clerk has called the name. mr. leahy: i ask consent the call of the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: thank you for your due diligence. i would like to rise for the purpose of putting a statement in the record for myself on the coburn proposal to the p.t.o. fee diversion. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: i ask for the calling of the quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i ask that the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection.

mr. grassley: i ask unanimous consent that a quorum call be equally charged to both sides. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. boxer: madam president, i ask that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. boxer: and i think the managers are aware that i'm going to make a unanimous consent request shortly on a bill that deals with members' pay in the event of a government shutdown. and i've been told that we're waiting to see. there's apparently one objection on the republican side. if we can clear it, then this will be passed. and if not, then i'll be back later to make the same request. i want to say to my friend from vermont and my friend from iowa that i support the managers' package. i think it's terrific. one of the things in there is a coburn-boxer amendment that would keep the patent fees at the patent office. i'm so glad that the chairman sees it that way because we have such a tremendous backlog.

so, i'll be happy to yield to my friend. mr. leahy: i just want to ask a question about the proposal that you're going to make on pay, which is fine with me. could you not have an alternative in there, that we give the money to charity so somebody would actually see it? this would be like a one-one hundred thousandths of one percent going to treasury. the last time i just gave it to charity. wouldn't that make a lot more sense than actually people might get some benefit from it, especially things like homeless shelters and feeding things and all that. they're going to be hurt by a government shutdown, why not do something where they would get the money directly? mrs. boxer: that's a good idea. the reason i've done it this way

is because i'm trying to say that we in the united states senate and in the house have an obligation to keep the government running, and we should be treated just like other federal employees. and so that's the simplicity of this. you can't force a member to give money to charity. mr. leahy: you could actually by writing it to say either return it to the treasury or give an equal amount to charity and file with the secretary of senate when they give it to charity. mrs. boxer: again, that's treating us differently than other federal employees. that would be a tax write-off. mr. leahy: wouldn't have to give the full amount -- mrs. boxer: it's a tax write-off to give to charity. all i'm saying is that's certainly another option if my friend wanted to change it. i just think it's simple. it's simple. we just want to be treated the same as other federal employees, and that's how i've structured

it. i spoke about this this morning. i offered -- i wrote this amendment with the support of senators casey, manchin, nelson of nebraska, bennet, warner, wyden, coons, stabenow, merkley and rockefeller. i think there's a growing consensus that we want to avoid a shutdown at any cost, and i'm hoping that we will avoid it. there could come a moment where it is forced upon us. there's lots of stories. who will get the blame for this, that, and the other. to me, that's not important. what's important to me is that we sacrifice. we here in the united states senate, in the house as well. i'm hopeful, if we get this done, we send this over to speaker boehner, that he'll get it through his body over there, and then we can get this done, send it to the president. it also impacts the president too. we say the president can't get paid either because the deal is that we have to work with the

president and come up with a compromise here. so senator leahy has a good suggestion. some people might like that option better. i feel this should be kept very simple. in the case of a government shutdown, we're treated the same way as other federal employees. the reason we have to do this is members of congress and the president are paid by a separate statute rather than by the annual appropriations process. so we have to pass a separate statute on this. and, it's a very simple, simple bill. and, again, i hope that we never have to come to this where we have any type of a shutdown. but maybe this bill will make some colleagues who feel that they'll be protected from sacrifice, you know, will realize that it's painful.

it's painful for a lot of people. certainly it would be painful for someone on social security or disability can't get their payment. if veterans who are on disability don't get their check. it's certainly painful if a citizen is planning a trip and can't get a passport. it's painful if superfund sites can't be cleaned up. it's painful if there is a, god forbid, an oil well explosion because we didn't have people there to inspect the oil well. and for our business people who are government contractors, it's painful if they don't get paid. export licenses must be granted and our troops should be paid. so there's no reason why we should shut down this government. and i'm very hopeful we'll have unanimous consent to do it.and y inquiry to ask the chair. is it true that we no longer

have secret objections here? a person has to identify themselves if they're objecting? the presiding officer: there provisions that address people objecting to unanimous consent requests. mrs. boxer: okay. so would i be correct if i said that if someone objects, we would know who that individual is so that we can speak with that individual? you said there are provisions. could you be more specific about that? the presiding officer: if the senator will hold for a minute. we will get the provision and read it to you. mr. leahy: while the senator is waiting for that -- the presiding officer: senator from vermont. mr. leahy: under article 2 of the constitution, it says the president shall state at times

receive for his services a compensation which shall not be increased or diminished for the period he has been elected. and would your amendment be constitutional under that -- under that provision? i remember that we voted to increase the pay of a president when president clinton -- if i could have the attention of the senator -- between the time when president clinton was in office, but did not take effect until president george w. bush came in and it doubled the salary of the president for president bush, but not president clinton. but how to you by statute change, even for a matter of days, a presidential salary? doesn't it violate article 2 of the constitution? mrs. boxer: we did check this with the legal counsel.

and they told us that the legislation drafted does not increase or diminish the salary of the president. it with holds pay during the shut down to raise the ceiling. there are definitely questions, and we're told only the president would be able to cal exthis -- challenge this legislation in a court of law. mr. leahy: but what you're saying is that even though it goes directly the constitution, which says its compensation shall not be increased or diminished during the period for which he has been elected, that unless he objected, by the same token then why couldn't we just raise the pay of a president unless he objected? mrs. boxer: i'll repeat what i said. this legislation that's drafted does not increase or decrease the salary. it would withhold it and if the president felt that was a violation, he, himself, would

have to challenge it. mr. leahy: but we have some responsibility in this body to actually pass laws under the constitution, that would if there's a shutdown, and on a p r diem basis, if his salary is decreased why isn't that de facto a violation of the constitution? mrs. boxer: we're not changing diminishing the salary. mr. leahy: you are. mrs. boxer: it is in the case of an extraordinary event, a government shutdown. the senator can vote against this -- mr. leahy: that's not my question. mrs. boxer: i'll repeat what i said. we don't diminish his salary. we withhold it during a period of a government shutdown or a failure to raise the debt ceiling. and there's a reason that we do it. it's very rare that we have a government shutdown. but in my view, and in the view of the cosponsors of this, this is a major function of our -- of

our body and of the president to avert a government shutdown and we don't think it's fair to treat people differently than others. and if other federal employees are going to get their pay cut and your social security recipients don't get their checks, we think the congress and the president ought to have a bite taken out of their pay as well. mr. leahy: i don't disagree with anything that the senator is saying. how do you get -- it would be like reducing a judge's salary. the constitution specifically prohibits that. you say it's not reducing, but, of course it is. say we're shut down five days, if you take -- take whatever percentage five days of the president's annual salary, you withhold it, you're not going to give it back when the -- when the -- when the government comes back into -- into service.

so you've decreased his salary. i'm not suggesting not doing it for the congress, but i don't see how -- i'm not sure what kind of example that we set if we pass a piece of legislation which on the face of it violates the constitution. i'm not talking about members of congress. as i said, the last time we had a shutdown, i took whatever -- i added it to the thousands and thousands of dollars i give every year to charity. i added it to that. but in this case, you go against article 2 by decreasing the president's salary. i -- mrs. boxer: we do not. mr. leahy: of course you do. mrs. boxer: we are not changing a penny of the president's pay. what we are saying is in the event after government shutdown, he will be treated the same way other federal employees are

treated. he'll be treated the same way that we are treated. now, if he determines that he wants to challenge this in a court, we hope we don't ever face this, so we are not in any way have to change his salary. we hope to never have to use this. mr. leahy: is the senator saying we set the right example by passing a bill, which on the face of it violates a constitution, but it's okay unless somebody challenges it? mrs. boxer: no, i'm not. i'll reiterate it. which is this, we do not increase or decrease the president's pay it stays at the level -- mr. leahy: it stays. mrs. boxer: can i finish. i let you talk. i don't have the legal degree my friend has. it's common sense. it seem to me it's a question of fairness that those responsible for keeping this government open -- okay, i'll just finish this thought -- keeping this government open, if we fail to do that, we ought to be

punished. i'm going to make a unanimous consent request at this time. i understand there's an objection on the other side or may be on this side at this point. i'll suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: mrs. boxer: i ask that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: the senator from california. without objection. mrs. boxer: i've been told a republican colleague objects to this. i don't understand why. i don't think it's a constitutional objection. i don't know why. the presiding officer: the senator is out of time. mrs. boxer: i would ask

unanimous consent to make this request. the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. vitter: on behalf of senator coburn, i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mrs. boxer: madam president, i note the absence of a quorum. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the senator does not have enough time under her control to suggest the absence of a quorum. mr. vitter: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. vitter: thank you, madam president. madam president, i rise in strong support of the toomey-vitter amendment, which we will vote on in the series of two votes starting at 5:00 p.m. the idea behind the toomey-vitter is very simple. it says that if we ever reach the debt ceiling, that the government, as a top priority, first priority, will use revenue to pay two things, first of all, proper interest payments on our u.s. government debt, and,

secondly, social security checks to seniors. and, madam president, the -- the motivation behind this amendment is simple. first of all, those two things should be legitimately top priority. no one should want the u.s. government to default on its debt and no one should want the stoppage immediately or any time of social security checks to seniors. so, first of all, it's legitimate to rank those two functions as an absolute top priority. and the second motivation behind this amendment, madam president, is to take some of these scare tactics and hysteria out of this debate. too many people, in my opinion, madam president, have been saying, if we ever reach the debt ceiling, the next day -- ceiling, the next day all social security checks will stop, all u.s. payments will stop on u.s. treasury bills on government debt. that is not true. there's no reason it has to be

true. and this amendment, when passed into law, will ensure that it's not true. and will ensure that we look at the situation with focus and calmness not hysteria and scare tactics. and, madam president, the goal i'm certainly for, i know senator toomey, my distinguished colleague from pennsylvania is certainly for, not that we default on our debt or reach the debt ceiling, but it is that we take strong, responsible action well ahead of any threatened event like that to put us on a fiscally sustainable path. just this morning, madam president, both senator toomey and i were in a hearing of the senate banking committee. and the witness, the only witness, was ben bernanke, chairman of the board of governors of the federal reserve. and chairman bankruptc chairmanr

things, and heed said we are on a unsustainable fiscal path. our budget is unsustainable. second, he said that is the biggest long-term threat to our economy, the biggest threat. and, third, he said that although it's a long-term problem, it could create a short-term crisis. it could create a cries trace -- crisis that could hit immediately at any time. need to act and we need to act strongly. i'd be happy to yield time to the distinguished senator from pennsylvania. mrs. boxer: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. boxer: madam president, i just want to say that i object to the vitter-toomey bill. i'm not going to pay china -- the presiding officer: the senator has no time. the senator's time has expired. mrs. boxer: i ask unanimous consent that the homeland security and governmental

affairs committee be discharged. i ask unanimous consent to speak to make a unanimous consent -- mr. vitter: madam president, i think i control the floor and i yield to the senator from pennsylvania. the presiding officer: is there objection to the senator's request for unanimous consent? mr. vitter: i object. mrs. boxer: parliamentary inquiry. the presiding officer: the objection is heard. mrs. boxer: par parliamentary question, can people object to a unanimous consent request without saying who they are, number one, and number two, what is the parliamentary procedure here? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana objected to the unanimous consent request on behalf of the senator from oklahoma, senator coburn. the senator from louisiana objected to the extension of the unanimous consent request for additional time on his own behalf.

mrs. boxer: the senator from oklahoma, senator coburn, objects to the bill that we have that would say, we don't get made it the case after shutdown, is that correct, senator coburn is objecting to that? the presiding officer: that is the chair's understanding -- all time remaining is under control of the minority. mrs. boxer: thank you. the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. toomey: thank you very much, madam president. i'd like to thank senator vitter for yielding his time and for his help on this effort. listen, i just want to be very clear. first of all, i'm not aware of anybody in this body or anybody i know that wants to see a government shutdown. i'm not aware of anybody that wants to see the disruption that would result from failing to raise the debt ceiling when at the appropriate time. but i also feel very strongly that it's critical that we take this opportunity to begin to address the structural problems that we have. the fact is we have a burden of

debt right now that is costing us jobs in this country today. the uncertainty that it creates, the cost of financing this, the question of whether and for how long we can roll this over, the extent to which inflation becomes a problem, all of these risk factors are already weighing on our economy and our ability to create jobs now. for the future, it's an even bigger rifnlgt and so -- risk. and so senator vitter and iav